Sh. Rasheed Sharif vs The State
The appellant, a Ziladar, challenged his conviction under Section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Sections 5(2) and 47 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, recorded by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had successfully proved the recovery of tainted money and the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond a reasonable doubt. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the recovery of the alleged bribe money from the immediate possession of the appellant, as it was recovered from a third party, and that the raiding officers were stationed too far away to overhear any conversation. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence, laying down the principle that where prosecution evidence regarding recovery is contradictory and doubtful, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused resulting in acquittal.
- Whether the uncorroborated recovery of tainted money from a third party rather than the accused is sufficient to sustain a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947?
- Does the inability of raiding officers to overhear the alleged conversation regarding a bribe create a fatal flaw in the prosecution case?
- When should the benefit of doubt be extended to an accused in a corruption case?
- Section 161, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
- Section 47, Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
- Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
JUDGMENT S. ALI HASSAN RIZVI, J. - The appellant Sh. Rashid Sharif was tried in case F.I.R. No. 15/02, dated 21.2.2002 for offences under Section 161, P.P.C.' and Sections 5(2)/47, P.C.A, registered at Police Station ACE, Mandi Baha-ud-Din, by Mr. Muhammad Mahmood Chaudhry, learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Gujranwala. He was convicted under the afore-mentioned offences and was directed to undergo R.I. For one year plus fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In default, he was directed to suffer S.I.
For three months vide judgment dated 8.11,2008.
2. The appellant was Ziladar at the relevant time. A raid was conducted upon him on receipt of allegation that he had received Rs. 2000/- as illegal gratification for implementing warabandi and that he was still demanding Rs. 2000/- more, it was also alleged against him that the appellant was siding with the opponent of the complainant Sultan Ahmad and was trying to allow time to them to get injunction against the warabandi. As a result of investigation carried out by Razzaq Ahmad-PW.6, the involvement of the appellant was established and he was put up for trial.
3. The defence plea of the appellant in his statement under Section 342, Cr.P.C, was that he was falsely involved in this case and that he had never received any- illegal gratification. He produced documents Ex.DA to DL.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, the learned D.P.G, and have perused the record.
The main plank of the prosecution case was that the tainted money of Rs. 2000/- was recovered from the possession of the appellant vide memo. Ex.PB. A perusal of the evidence, however, showed that-the said amount was never recovered from the immediate possession of the appellant.
Instead, it was recovered*from Muhammad Tahir (PW.4) an owner of the Medical Store. PW-7, Circle Officer was admittedly standing at a distance of 400 yards alongwith other officials wherefrom talk taking place at the relevant, time between the bribe giver and the alleged bribe receiver could not be possibly heard. The search w^s made of Tahir PW4. There was no evidence to show if the amount of Rs. 2000/- being passed was a bribe or illegal gratification at the relevant time. The evidence, which came on record contradicted the contents of recovery memo.1 Ex.PF dated 2.4.2002 shaking uptil the breaking point, the rickety angles set up by the prosecution on the memo. Ex.PB. The singular statement of the complainant will have to undergo a double-check, In these circumstances I am not satisfied that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, it would , therefore, be better to err in favour of the appellant. I, therefore, allow the appeal and extending benefit of doubt in favour of the appellant, acquit him of the charge with which he was charged. Consequently, the conviction and sentence recorded against him shall stand set aside.